On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:01:16 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:

> pltrgyst wrote:
>
>>>> This post is Intellectual Property, if you've made it available
>>>> for viewing on a website, you must remove it immediately.
>>>
>>>Referring to Usenet posts as 'Intellectual Property' made me laugh
>>>even louder...
>>
>> Not only that, but the statement is completely false. First, by
>> publishing on USEnet, you've implicitly granted general permission for
>> reproduction, archiving, echoing, or mirroring, as demonstrated by
>> Google Groups, among numerous others. Secondly, USEnet is itself an
>> unrestricted network of servers which copy and share content, using
>> nntp instead of http. And third, there is no compulsion to "remove"
>> anything which may have been published under the doctrine of fair use
>> from a Web site.
>>
>> -- Larry (Yeah, I do work in actual IP for the US government)
>
> I'm far from a copyright/intellectual property expert myself, but common
> sense tells me that it would be difficult (if not impossible) to
> enforce copyright/IP laws for Usenet posts. And IME, even plastering
> copyright notices on websites does not deter certain people from
> spidering and/or copying selected parts of a website - if and when they
> feel like doing so. Sad, but true.

as far as i know, the mere act of writing something - 'published' or not -
givesw you a copyright. but, as you say, it would be difficult to collect
any copyright infringement damages unless someone was rash enough to
publish 'the sayings of chairman stu' and millions of people were rash
enough to buy it.

your pal,
blake